Roberts Criticized ‘Divisive’ Nomination Process Days Before Scalia’s Death

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the “sharply political, divisive” nomination process to the nation’s highest court during comments at a law school event in Boston in February, a little more than a week before Justice Antonin Scalia died.

The comments, made at New England Law on February 3 in Boston, were surfaced by the New York Times on Monday morning.

Roberts voiced two criticisms during the 45-minute talk, according to the Times.

First, Roberts said he was concerned that the nominating process was “being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.”

Second, Roberts said, the “sharply political, divisive hearing process” may signal to the public that the court operates on partisan lines.

“When you have a sharply political, divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms. If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely about whether you’re going to be confirmed, it’s natural for some member of the public to think, well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process,” Roberts said.

Watch the full conversation at C-SPAN.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. “…the “sharply political, divisive hearing process” may signal to the public that the court operates on partisan lines.”

    Well…duh!

  2. Second, Roberts said, the “sharply political, divisive hearing process” may signal to the public that the court operates on partisan lines.

    The court may operate on partisan lines!?

    Thanks, Roberts! Something had been bothering me all these years about Bush V. Gore, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

  3. That’s right, John. It’s both parties to blame for this.

    One party announces, before anything has been discussed or the autopsy has happened, that not even if the President nominated Ronald Reagan’s ghost himself would they engage in the confirmation process.

    The other party says, the president has 11 months left to serve as president, and he will do his job and make the nomination as the Constitution says. Then the president nominates a moderate, reasonable jurist who has had significant Republican support in the past.

    And the first party then says, “We won’t even meet with the nominee because … Joe Biden said something 12 years ago!”

    That’s right, John. Both sides are the same.

  4. If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely

    Republicans: We will not confirm anyone nominated by Obama.
    Roberts: Democrats are fighting for the nomination.

    Roberts is clearly not partisan.

  5. It must be uncomfortable knowing history will condemn you and your Court as a political hacks…

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

50 more replies

Participants

Avatar for valgalky23 Avatar for ekramer Avatar for ajaykalra Avatar for jcs Avatar for kendyzdad Avatar for foundryman Avatar for djnoll Avatar for chammy Avatar for cvilledem Avatar for mantan Avatar for johnscotus Avatar for hquain Avatar for robcat2075 Avatar for ghamiltonsq Avatar for serendipitoussomnambulist Avatar for dickweed Avatar for jcblues Avatar for dnl Avatar for azjude Avatar for darrtown Avatar for beattycat Avatar for saylen Avatar for owlcroft Avatar for landshark2897

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: